HOW WE SHOULD THINK

How many variables fell into place that I might have this rare opportunity to experience life? What are the chances that I would be included in the vast number of presumably intentional organisms which flourish in the universe? How likely or unlikely is it that I might possess a brain and a mind capable of absorbing all that my senses can and do discover? I unwittingly, yet miraculously, find myself here on tiny planet Earth, one of several planets surrounding just one star, our Sun. What are the odds that I find myself in this galaxy which we have named the Milky Way, and which is home to more than one hundred billion stars, just like our Sun, no doubt hosting their own solar systems with hundreds of billions of other planets? Yes, hundreds of billions of planets in the luminescent band which stretches across our sky. And then hundreds of billions of other luminescent galaxies in other distant skies. The numbers are incomprehensible, unintelligible to the human brain. Yet here I am. And here we are together. What in heaven's name do we do now that we're here? And what, by gosh, do we think of the whole affair? Had the stars not aligned just so, had the atoms and molecules not responded as the laws of physics demand, and had each in my lineage of forebears not been coerced by feelings of lust, I might be nothing at all. Not a thing, not a thought, nothing. Nonexistent. But I do exist. We exist. And astonishingly, we share and exchange the same molecular building blocks, in our breaths and in our bodies, that have been recycling through the universe forever and ever. That which comprised a prehistoric beast now builds a butterfly and a weeping willow tree. That which fell to the earth on the tail of a long-forgotten comet now enters my lungs and is exhaled in my breath. That which travels in the forest stream today may nourish my great, great granddaughter's blood in a future century, and then find itself in a distant galaxy millenniums later. It's all so gloriously impressive, leading many to conclude that there simply must be a divine, thoughtful, all-powerful creator. I diplomatically choose to consider the plausibility of such an entity as an awe-inspiring mystery instead of choosing sides in an often malicious controversy. “A wise man never knows all, only a fool knows everything.” ~African Proverb . . . On the path of life we intuitively seek truths for guidance and for the comfort of universal familiarity. We strive to acquire, record and install those collected truths as personal and societal building blocks. Truths, as we choose to individually classify certain ideas, provide a foundation for future beliefs, for our concepts of morality, and for our conduct and interactions. Truths, as we know them, employ reason to direct us on a steadfast and straight-forward course. But not all truths are universally accepted. Truths exist in the personalized minds of those who recognize and so call them. All of my truths are not necessarily your truths. And all of your truths are not necessarily the truths of the dolphins or the sparrows. Herein lies one of philosophy's great challenges: reconciling incompatible truths. “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” ~Aristotle (384-322BC) . . . But even truths endorsed by science are subject to change. One notable example would be the truth regarding the surface of planet Earth. There was a time when the Earth was flat. Well, that was a truth everyone held without question. It was just so obvious. And then there was a time when our Sun and all celestial bodies circled our planet. Earth was most certainly the center of the universe. Galileo (1564-1642) supported Copernicus' revelation that the Sun was actually the center of our solar system, not planet Earth. For this, Galileo was tried and convicted of heresy by the Roman Inquisition, and forced to spend the remaining decade of his life under house arrest. This followed a vigorous assault by preachers, bishops, cardinals and at least two popes who aligned Copernicus and Galileo with the devil, siting scripture in every obscure manner to discredit their scientific findings. Science was certainly not a friend of the Roman Catholic Church. More recently, the presumably unshakable laws of physics, virtually etched in stone by Newton and Einstein, are being challenged by quantum theory and research into quantum mechanics. Do we, considering these examples, dare classify any piece of knowledge as absolute fact? “In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.” ~Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)